<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: VSTS/TFS performance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.coryfoy.com/2007/05/vststfs-performance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.coryfoy.com/2007/05/vststfs-performance/</link>
	<description>Agile Coaching, Ruby, .NET, Debugging, why not?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:46:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: cash loan</title>
		<link>http://blog.coryfoy.com/2007/05/vststfs-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-838</link>
		<dc:creator>cash loan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:50:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cornetdesign.com/?p=152#comment-838</guid>
		<description>I agree with you on TFS and the exact word to describe what it does is one you wrote. Havoc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you on TFS and the exact word to describe what it does is one you wrote. Havoc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://blog.coryfoy.com/2007/05/vststfs-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-169</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cornetdesign.com/?p=152#comment-169</guid>
		<description>My major gripes with TFS are:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#039;Get latest&#039; cannot be trusted, ever.  It just does not work, which is pretty bad for a source control product.  &#039;Get specific version&#039; is fine though.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Performance can be crappy, both on check-in and check-out, with no clear reason why.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Any other problems are really just due to the way it is integrated into studio (single source provider, usual &#039;add to source control&#039; issues).  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Oh, and one time I totally lost all changes to a project for the last 3 months..dunno why!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My major gripes with TFS are:</p>
<p>&#8216;Get latest&#8217; cannot be trusted, ever.  It just does not work, which is pretty bad for a source control product.  &#8216;Get specific version&#8217; is fine though.</p>
<p>Performance can be crappy, both on check-in and check-out, with no clear reason why.</p>
<p>Any other problems are really just due to the way it is integrated into studio (single source provider, usual &#8216;add to source control&#8217; issues).  </p>
<p>Oh, and one time I totally lost all changes to a project for the last 3 months..dunno why!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://blog.coryfoy.com/2007/05/vststfs-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-170</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cornetdesign.com/?p=152#comment-170</guid>
		<description>Hi, in regards to your comment:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&quot;One option could be just to always keep everything checked out, and use the multiple check-out option.&quot;  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;With this model in TFS, are you still forced to checkin files which you never changed despite their being checked out under TFS?  This would create a lot of churn under the version history wouldn&#039;t it?  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&#039;m hoping to find a way around this, but at the moment this seems like a huge flaw in the TFS model.  Although it&#039;s a remarkable improvement over VSS, I don&#039;t consider that a very high bar to have bested.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you have ideas here I&#039;d welcome the feedback!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, in regards to your comment:</p>
<p>&#8220;One option could be just to always keep everything checked out, and use the multiple check-out option.&#8221;  </p>
<p>With this model in TFS, are you still forced to checkin files which you never changed despite their being checked out under TFS?  This would create a lot of churn under the version history wouldn&#8217;t it?  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m hoping to find a way around this, but at the moment this seems like a huge flaw in the TFS model.  Although it&#8217;s a remarkable improvement over VSS, I don&#8217;t consider that a very high bar to have bested.</p>
<p>If you have ideas here I&#8217;d welcome the feedback!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas  Eyde</title>
		<link>http://blog.coryfoy.com/2007/05/vststfs-performance/comment-page-1/#comment-171</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas  Eyde</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 16:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.cornetdesign.com/?p=152#comment-171</guid>
		<description>There are a few things I don&#039;t understand about TFS:&lt;br /&gt;- why do we have to check out the files?&lt;br /&gt;- why aren&#039;t they writable all the time?&lt;br /&gt;- why don&#039;t &#039;get latest&#039; get all server files?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My team has struggled with files not checked in, files not getting out, and changes done outside of vs not detected at all.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And please note that TFS to me is as seen from inside of Visual Studio.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are a few things I don&#8217;t understand about TFS:<br />- why do we have to check out the files?<br />- why aren&#8217;t they writable all the time?<br />- why don&#8217;t &#8216;get latest&#8217; get all server files?</p>
<p>My team has struggled with files not checked in, files not getting out, and changes done outside of vs not detected at all.</p>
<p>And please note that TFS to me is as seen from inside of Visual Studio.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
